Corporate Misconduct Accountability Project
Tamarack Mill, LLC · EPA Administrative Consent Agreement and Final Order
Idaho Sawmill Polluted River for Years, Paid Tiny Fine, Admitted Nothing
Tamarack Mill illegally discharged industrial waste into the Weiser River for nearly four years, failed dozens of inspections, and settled for $45,000 without admitting fault.
HIGH SEVERITY
TL;DR
From October 2019 to May 2023, Tamarack Mill, a sawmill and power plant in New Meadows, Idaho, repeatedly violated its Clean Water Act permit by illegally discharging industrial pollutants into the Weiser River. The EPA documented 13 categories of violations including unauthorized wastewater discharge, failure to conduct mandatory inspections, oil spills left uncleaned, and contaminated stormwater flowing from ash piles and scrap yards directly into the river. After years of documented violations, the company agreed to pay a $45,000 penalty without admitting or denying any of the EPA’s factual findings.
This is what happens when environmental enforcement settles for paperwork instead of accountability.
$45,000
Total penalty for nearly 4 years of pollution violations
13
Distinct categories of permit violations documented by EPA
4
Outfalls illegally discharging pollutants into Weiser River
0
Admissions of fault required under settlement agreement
The Allegations: A Breakdown
Core Allegations
What they did · 7 points
| 01 | Tamarack Mill illegally discharged process wastewater from the facility into the Weiser River without authorization. The company’s permit only authorized stormwater discharges and limited non-stormwater discharges, but the EPA found the mill was releasing industrial wastewater that fell outside these categories. | high |
| 02 | The facility failed to implement basic pollution prevention measures in its boneyard and kiln areas. The EPA documented contaminated materials improperly stored and exposed to stormwater, allowing pollutants to wash directly into the river system. | high |
| 03 | Tamarack Mill failed to properly respond to oil leaks and spills at the facility. During the May 2023 inspection, EPA inspectors found stained soil adjacent to the release valve for a secondary containment structure, evidence the company was not cleaning up petroleum releases as required. | high |
| 04 | The company discharged discolored water containing ash residue into the river. EPA inspectors observed contaminated water flowing through a sawdust storage pile with visible ash residue at the time of inspection, violating requirements to control ash tracking from loading areas. | high |
| 05 | Tamarack Mill allowed contaminated stormwater to flow from scrap yards and debris areas directly into the Weiser River. The EPA found relict equipment and debris in the facility’s boneyard were not properly managed to prevent stormwater contamination. | medium |
| 06 | The facility failed to inspect and repair above-ground fuel storage tanks to minimize spill risks. EPA inspectors found the company was not maintaining the structural integrity of secondary containment systems designed to catch leaks before they reached the environment. | high |
| 07 | The company failed to publicly post any sign or notice of its stormwater permit coverage. At the time of the May 22, 2023 inspection, no public notice was displayed as required by the permit, keeping local residents in the dark about industrial discharges occurring next door. | low |
Regulatory Failures
The inspection and documentation gaps · 6 points
| 01 | Tamarack Mill failed to complete required quarterly inspections in the first and second quarters of 2021. The company was also late conducting inspections in all quarters during 2020, creating a multi-year pattern of missing mandatory oversight deadlines. | medium |
| 02 | The company failed to conduct and document required monthly inspections of loading and unloading areas, fueling stations, ash handling areas, maintenance zones, and material storage sites. These sector-specific inspections were never performed or documented. | medium |
| 03 | Tamarack Mill failed to complete required visual assessments of stormwater samples for multiple quarters. The company missed visual assessments for all four quarters in 2020, the second quarter in 2021, the third and fourth quarters in 2022, and the first and second quarters in 2023. | medium |
| 04 | The facility failed to timely submit Discharge Monitoring Reports to the EPA for three separate monitoring periods. Reports for May 31, 2020, February 28, 2021, and June 30, 2023 were all submitted late, violating the permit’s 30-day submission requirement. | medium |
| 05 | The company failed to document all discharge points at the facility in its Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan by the end of the first year of permit coverage under the 2021 Multi-Sector General Permit. This meant unauthorized discharge points could operate without documentation or oversight. | medium |
| 06 | Tamarack Mill failed to document employee training and training schedules in its pollution prevention plan. The facility had no documented system for training employees on inspection procedures or sector-specific pollution prevention requirements. | low |
Corporate Accountability Failures
The settlement that changed nothing · 5 points
| 01 | The settlement explicitly states that Tamarack Mill neither admits nor denies the specific factual allegations in the consent agreement. After years of documented violations, the company paid its way out without ever acknowledging it did anything wrong. | high |
| 02 | The EPA assessed a civil penalty of $45,000 for violations spanning nearly four years and encompassing 13 distinct categories of permit violations. Spread across the violation period, the penalty amounts to less than $1,000 per month. | high |
| 03 | The consent agreement allows Tamarack Mill to pay the penalty over 12 months with a 7% annual interest rate. If paid within 30 days, all interest is waived, further reducing the financial consequences of multi-year pollution violations. | medium |
| 04 | The settlement includes standard language that penalties are not tax deductible, but provides no requirement for public disclosure beyond standard government filing. The company faces no requirement to notify affected communities or explain what happened. | low |
| 05 | This is the second EPA enforcement action against Tamarack Mill in New Meadows in the last decade. A 2016 consent agreement addressed completely different pollution violations at the same facility, suggesting a pattern of non-compliance that fines have failed to correct. | high |
Community Impact
The river that bears the cost · 4 points
| 01 | The Weiser River connects to the Snake River downstream of river mile 445.5, where the Snake River is designated as a traditional navigable water under the Rivers and Harbors Act. Pollutants discharged into the Weiser River flow directly into this larger regional waterway system. | high |
| 02 | Tamarack Mill discharged stormwater and unauthorized wastewater through four identified outfall points directly into the Weiser River. Each outfall functioned as a point source of industrial pollutants flowing into waters that are supposed to be protected under the Clean Water Act. | high |
| 03 | The facility’s violations directly undermined the stated objective of the Clean Water Act, which is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Years of illegal discharges degraded a waterway that federal law exists to protect. | high |
| 04 | Local residents had no public notice of the facility’s permit coverage or its violations. The company never posted the required sign informing the community that industrial stormwater discharges were occurring, and the settlement imposes no requirement for public notification or community engagement. | medium |
Public Health and Safety
What flowed into the river · 4 points
| 01 | The facility discharged industrial pollutants including oil, ash residue, sawdust, bark, wood shavings, and other materials associated with sawmill and power generation operations. These substances entered the Weiser River without proper treatment or containment. | high |
| 02 | Tamarack Mill’s activities are classified under Standard Industrial Classification code 2421 for sawmills and as a steam electric power generating facility. Both categories are regulated specifically because their industrial activities generate pollutants that pose risks to water quality and aquatic life. | medium |
| 03 | The company failed to prevent debris and plastics from being discharged in stormwater runoff. Plastic pollution and industrial debris in waterways harm aquatic ecosystems and can persist in the environment for decades. | medium |
| 04 | Oil leaks and spills at the facility were not properly cleaned up, allowing petroleum products to contaminate soil and potentially reach groundwater or surface water through stormwater runoff. Petroleum contamination can harm fish and wildlife and create long-term environmental damage. | high |
The Bottom Line
Justice deferred is justice denied · 6 points
| 01 | The EPA conducted a compliance evaluation inspection on May 22, 2023, documenting widespread violations that had been occurring since at least October 2019. The agency took years to inspect the facility despite its history of prior violations. | medium |
| 02 | The consent agreement was not filed until September 24, 2025, more than two years after the inspection that documented the violations. During this delay, the company continued operating under the same permit with no interim enforcement action. | medium |
| 03 | The settlement states that Tamarack Mill is addressing the violations in accordance with a separate Administrative Compliance Order on Consent. The penalty agreement is divorced from any requirement to actually fix the problems that caused years of illegal pollution. | high |
| 04 | Maximum statutory penalties under the Clean Water Act for Class II violations can reach $27,378 per day for each day a violation continues, up to $342,218 total. The actual penalty of $45,000 represents a small fraction of what the law allows. | high |
| 05 | The final order explicitly states that nothing in the settlement affects the EPA’s right to pursue injunctive relief or criminal sanctions for violations of law. The government reserves the right to take further action but chose not to in this case. | medium |
| 06 | Tamarack Mill waived its right to contest the allegations, appeal the final order, or have the matter resolved in federal court with a jury trial. In exchange for giving up procedural rights, the company avoided any admission of wrongdoing and paid a nominal penalty. | medium |
Timeline of Events
March 2021
EPA’s 2021 Multi-Sector General Permit becomes effective, establishing new requirements for Tamarack Mill’s stormwater discharges
July 2021
Idaho assumes primary permitting authority for stormwater permits; EPA retains enforcement authority under Clean Water Act Section 402(i)
May 2023
EPA conducts compliance evaluation inspection at Tamarack Mill facility, documenting widespread violations dating back to October 2019
September 2025
EPA files Consent Agreement and Final Order assessing $45,000 penalty; Tamarack Mill neither admits nor denies allegations
Direct Quotes from the Legal Record
QUOTE 1
No admission of wrongdoing
accountability
“Respondent neither admits nor denies the specific factual allegations contained in this Consent Agreement.”
💡 The company paid a penalty but never had to acknowledge it actually committed the violations the EPA documented.
QUOTE 2
Unauthorized wastewater discharge
allegations
“The EPA alleges that Respondent violated the CWA by discharging process wastewater from the Facility into the Weiser River without authorization.”
💡 This was not permitted stormwater runoff but illegal discharge of industrial wastewater directly into a protected river.
QUOTE 3
Evidence of oil spills
allegations
“The EPA alleges that Respondent violated Part 2.1.2.4 of the MSGP by failing to properly respond to oil leaks and spills, as evidenced by stained soil adjacent to the release valve for the secondary containment structure.”
💡 The EPA found physical evidence that oil was leaking and the company was not cleaning it up as required.
QUOTE 4
Visible contamination
allegations
“The EPA alleges that Respondent violated Part 8.O.4.11 of the MSGP by failing to properly manage ash at the Facility, as evidenced by discolored water flowing through a sawdust storage pile with ash residue at the time of inspection.”
💡 Inspectors personally witnessed contaminated water flowing from industrial waste piles during their site visit.
QUOTE 5
Years of missed inspections
regulatory
“The EPA alleges that Respondent violated Parts 3.1.4 and 3.1.6 of the MSGP by failing to complete quarterly inspections in the first and second quarters in 2021. The EPA further alleges that Respondent was untimely in conducting inspections in all quarters in 2020.”
💡 The company systematically failed to perform the basic oversight required by its permit for at least two consecutive years.
QUOTE 6
No public notice
allegations
“The EPA alleges that Respondent violated Part 1.3.5 of the MSGP by failing to publicly display a sign or notice of its permit coverage at the time of inspection on May 22, 2023.”
💡 The community had no way to know industrial discharges were occurring or that the facility operated under a federal permit.
QUOTE 7
Direct discharge to protected waters
community
“The Weiser River is connected to the Snake River downstream of river mile 445.5, where the Snake River is a traditional navigable water pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Accordingly, the Weiser River is a navigable water within the meaning of Section 502(7) of the CWA.”
💡 Pollutants discharged into the Weiser River flow directly into the Snake River, a federally protected waterway.
QUOTE 8
Multiple outfalls
community
“The Facility discharges stormwater through four identified discharge points (Outfalls 001-004) into the Weiser River.”
💡 The facility had four separate pipes channeling industrial runoff and unauthorized wastewater into the river.
QUOTE 9
Undermining the Clean Water Act
community
“As provided in CWA Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a), the objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”
💡 Years of illegal discharges directly violated the foundational purpose of the law meant to protect this river.
QUOTE 10
Token penalty
accountability
“After considering all of these factors as they apply to this case, the EPA has determined that an appropriate penalty to settle this action is $45,000.”
💡 For nearly four years of violations across 13 categories, the total penalty amounts to less than $1,000 per month.
QUOTE 11
Payment plan option
accountability
“Respondent consents to the assessment of the Assessed Penalty set forth in Paragraph 4.3 and agrees to pay the total Assessed Penalty with interest, at the current IRS standard underpayment rate of 7 percent per annum, within twelve (12) months after the date of the Final Order.”
💡 The company was given a full year to pay a penalty that amounts to a rounding error for an industrial facility.
QUOTE 12
Interest waived for quick payment
accountability
“If the Assessed Penalty is paid in full within thirty (30) days, interest accrued is waived.”
💡 Even the modest interest charge could be avoided entirely by paying promptly, further reducing financial consequences.
QUOTE 13
No public accountability
accountability
“Penalties, interest, and other charges paid pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deductible for purposes of federal taxes.”
💡 The settlement’s only public accountability measure is that the company cannot write off the fine as a business expense.
QUOTE 14
EPA retains enforcement authority
conclusion
“Pursuant to CWA Section 402(i), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(i), the Administrator of the EPA retains the authority to take enforcement action under Section 309 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319, if a state NPDES program is approved.”
💡 Even after Idaho took over permitting authority, the EPA had full power to take strong enforcement action but chose this settlement instead.
QUOTE 15
Maximum penalties available
conclusion
“Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Part 19, the administrative assessment of Class II civil penalties may not exceed $27,378 per day for each day during which the violation continues, up to a maximum penalty of $342,218.”
💡 The law allowed penalties more than seven times higher than what the EPA actually assessed in this case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly did Tamarack Mill do wrong?
The EPA documented 13 categories of violations over nearly four years. The company illegally discharged industrial wastewater into the Weiser River, failed to clean up oil spills, allowed contaminated water with ash residue to flow into the river, failed to conduct dozens of required inspections, failed to submit monitoring reports on time, and never posted public notice of its permit coverage.
How much pollution actually entered the river?
The consent agreement does not quantify total discharge volumes, but documents that pollutants including oil, ash residue, sawdust, and other industrial wastes flowed through four separate outfall pipes directly into the Weiser River for years. EPA inspectors personally witnessed discolored water with ash residue flowing from waste piles during their 2023 inspection.
What happens to the $45,000 penalty?
The penalty goes to the U.S. Treasury. The company has 12 months to pay and can avoid all interest charges by paying within 30 days. The settlement does not direct any funds toward river cleanup, community notification, or environmental restoration projects.
Did the company admit it broke the law?
No. The settlement explicitly states that Tamarack Mill neither admits nor denies the factual allegations. The company paid the penalty without ever acknowledging it committed the violations the EPA documented.
Why was the penalty so small?
The Clean Water Act allows penalties up to $27,378 per day per violation, with a maximum of $342,218 for Class II administrative cases. The actual $45,000 penalty represents about 13% of the maximum allowed. The EPA considered factors including the nature and gravity of violations, economic benefit, and ability to pay, but the consent agreement does not explain why it settled for such a small fraction of available penalties.
Has this company been in trouble before?
Yes. In 2016, the EPA entered a separate consent agreement with Tamarack Mill for completely different pollution violations at the same facility in New Meadows, Idaho. This is the second EPA enforcement action against this company in less than a decade.
What happens to the river now?
The consent agreement references a separate Administrative Compliance Order on Consent that addresses ongoing compliance, but that document is not included in this filing. The settlement itself imposes no specific requirements to clean up past contamination or restore water quality.
Were local residents informed about this?
The EPA found the company never posted required public notice of its permit coverage, meaning neighbors had no way to know industrial discharges were occurring. The settlement imposes no requirement for community notification or public meetings to explain what happened.
Could the EPA have taken stronger action?
Yes. The EPA retained full enforcement authority even after Idaho assumed permitting responsibilities in 2021. The agency could have sought maximum penalties, required a detailed cleanup plan as part of the settlement, demanded public disclosure, or referred the case for criminal prosecution. It chose none of these options.
What can I do if I am concerned about pollution in my community?
You can request inspection records and enforcement files from the EPA under the Freedom of Information Act. You can ask your state environmental agency whether facilities near you have stormwater permits and request copies. Under the Clean Water Act, citizens have the right to sue polluters directly if government agencies fail to enforce the law. You can also contact local environmental advocacy organizations for guidance on monitoring and reporting pollution in your area.
This specific consent agreement from 2025 can be found on the EPA’s website: https://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/RHC/EPAAdmin.nsf/Filings/BE2751720DF43CAA85258D10006F63B8/$File/CAFO%20Tamarack%20Mill%20LLC%20CWA%2010%202025%200159.pdf
However the reason why I specified the 2025 link was above is because 10 years ago, this exact same evil corporation in New Meadows, Idaho named Tamarack Mill had another consent agreement with the EPA for completely different pollutions: https://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/RHC/EPAAdmin.nsf/Filings/75B56FA2A6C7945085257F1C0021479F/$File/CWA-10-2016-0031%20CAFO_OCR.pdf
💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.
